An article from the Jan. 3 2009 issue of The Lancet used a meta analysis to show that so-called first generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and second generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are not that much different in terms of efficacy, safety, and side effect profiles. The purported superiority of SGAs for negative symptoms and fewer side effects for SGAs were primarily the results of comparator studies that put them up against high dose haloperidol.

I have been reading a book called Hooked: the Medical Profession and the Pharmaceutical Industry by Howard Brody, MD PhD, of the University of Texas, Galveston, which I highly recommend as an interesting book that adds a lot even for those of you who feel you are “read out” on this topic, and this episode of comparing new drugs to old drugs given at doses that cause more side effects without providing more efficacy (which is stacking the deck in favor of the new drugs) is a pharmaceutical industry tactic that he identifies, although this is the first time we have heard of it as applied to antipsychotic “life saving drugs”.

Psychiatrists moved en masse from the FGAs to the SGAs largely because of concerns about tardive dyskinesia, extra pyramidal side effects, and what may have been a misguided belief that these drugs worked better, fueled by pharmaceutical marketing. As the paper shows, most studies in the literature were found to be using high dose haloperidol (>7.5 mg/day) (Haldol) as the comparison drug, which biased the trials in favor of showing a better side effect profile for the newer drugs. When studies using lower potency first generation drugs were focused on, the differences in safety and efficacy were considerably diminished. Specifically, the SGA drugs as a whole were not seen to be specifically better for negative symptoms of schizophrenia, which does not support marketing claims to the contrary. The drugs that were better for negative symptoms were also equally better for positive symptoms and depression. Although clozapine, olanzapine, and risperidone were marginally better for extra pyramidal side effects, which is largely why psychiatrists moved so heavily into SGAs in the first place, the effects were not large, and there were no significant differences for the other SGAs. The only SGAs that were shown to be better for psychotic symptoms than low dose FGAs were amisulpride (Solian, Sultopride), clozapine (Clozaril), olanzapine (Zyprexa) and risperidone (Risperdal). These drugs, however, caused more weight gain than haloperidol (but not low potency FGAs). Only Amisulpride and sertindole (Serlect) were better for quality of life. Aripiprazole (Abilify) was only better for depression and quetiapine (Seroquel) was better for positive symptoms and depression. Sertindole (Serlect), ziprasidone (Geodon), and zotepine (Zoleptil) were not better for any symptom area.

The recent CATIE study compared SGAs to the FGA perphenazine (Trilafon), and found that most of them were not better for efficacy or side effects, only olanzapine had a longer time to discontinuation (the primary outcome) and clozapine was better for symptoms. However, clozapine has bothersome blood monitoring requirements because of the risk of aplastic anemia, and olanzapine has some worrisome diabetes risks. What was most amazing about the CATIE study, however, was the fact that half of people stopped taking their meds after a couple of months, which indicates that people feel really lousy on these drugs.

The article was accompanied by an editorial by Turner and Horton entitled “The Spurious Advance of Antipsychotic Therapy” in which the authors said that psychiatrists had been “beguiled” (presumably by the pharmaceutical industry) into believing that the SGAs were superior (a point highlighted by others like Vera Sharav of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP). Although I wouldn’t agree with the emphasis that there is no difference between these drugs, it is true that the safety and efficacy of these drugs have been greatly distorted, that we should stop using the distinction of SGA-FGA or talking about unique profiles of “atypicals”. In addition, It is unclear if the extra cost of these drugs justifies their use when there is an increased risk of obesity and diabetes with not that great of an advantage for extra pyramidal side effects. Certainly for the drugs not better than low potency FGAs there is not.

Guess we got duped by pharma. Yet again.

Sigh.

originally posted jan 12 2009

1 Comment

• 

  By Princess, April 19, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

  I was on three antipsychotics when
  i was a teenager for generalized anxiety disorder. I was on Risperdal when I was 14 and later Abilify and after that Seroquel. They were all awful, did nothing for my anxiety and had horrible side effects. These antipsychotics are given out so frequently to teenagers and adolescents as well as children. Antipsychotics have hormones in it like prolactin, which affect adolescents a lot. Antipsychotics are not good to take during adolescence. They are given for off label sues so often. I’ve been off antipsychotics for a long time, but am still upset that I was on them as a teenager. Luckily, though, I was only on them for some of my teenage years, and most of my teenage years were not on them, but it’s not fair that I was on them during my teenage years. Taking Risperdal at 14 years old is not fun. I guess i’m lucky because soem kids never get off them, I was on Risperdal for eight months and then I got off that stuff. Abilify and Seroquel followed later, but there was lots of time in between. It was still horrible that I was on them. So many teenagers are put on them and not told about the side effects and what they do and it’s really unfair.

  Sorry I wrote this comment twice, I accidentaly commented on a different article you wrote. I apologize.

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment